Google Inc. v. Blues Destiny Records, LLC

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Blues Destiny Records, LLC ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 54611007247; Summons Issued). Filed by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. 7. 2.

THE PARTIES Google is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain

View, California. 3. Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally

accessible and useful. While Google offers dozens of products in service of that goal, its most recognizable offering is an Internet search engine located at www.google.com (and more than a hundred other country-specific Internet domains). 4. Anyone with access to the Internet can search Google's index for free by

inputting a search query into a field provided on Google's home page. Google's search engine then locates websites or other data on the Internet that it believes relate to the query, and presents a list of such sites and information as "search results." 5. Google's proprietary technology analyzes tens of billions of pages on the Internet

when determining which pages should be displayed in response to a user query. 6. Google alleges on information and belief that BDR is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida with its principal place of business in Destin, Florida. Google further alleges on information and belief that BDR is a music record label that claims to own, or be the exclusive licensee of, copyrights in the Works in Suit. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or 1400(a)

because, inter alia, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here, and, on information and belief, BDR resides here for purposes of the venue statutes since it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. INTRADISCTRICT ASSIGNMENT This action arises under the Copyright Act, and, therefore, according to Civil

Local Rule 3-2(c) and General Order No. 44, it may be assigned on a district-wide basis.

COMPLAINT BY GOOGLE INC.

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND By a complaint filed on or about December 7, 2009 in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Florida, BDR accused Google, Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and Rapidshare AG ("Rapidshare") of infringing the Works in Suit. BDR filed an Amended Complaint on December 11, 2009. A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 11. The Amended Complaint brought claims for relief against Google for vicarious

infringement, contributory infringement and inducement infringement. 12. BDR subsequently alerted Google that it intended to voluntarily dismiss its action

without prejudice. When seeking Google's consent to its motion to dismiss, BDR's attorneys represented to Google's attorneys on March 17, 2010 that "[t]o be fully disclosing, we are representing to you that we will re-file" the case. 13. On March 24, 2010 BRD filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its case against

Google without prejudice. 14. On March 30, 2010, the district court granted BDR's motion to dismiss its action

against Google without prejudice. 15. On April 15, 2010, Google's attorney contacted BDR's attorney and asked if

BDR still intended to re-file its case against Google. BDR's attorney reiterated BDR's belief that it had valid copyright claims against Google, that BDR was considering its option on whether it would seek relief against Google, but did not provide a definitive answer regarding whether or when BDR intended to re-file. BDR refused to grant Google a release concerning the infringement allegations contained in the Amended Complaint. 16. On April 23, having heard nothing further from BDR, Google apprised BDR's

attorney that unless BDR agreed to release its claims against Google, Google was going to seek declaratory relief concerning those claims. BDR did not respond. 17. Based on BDR's lawsuit against Google, its dismissal of that lawsuit without

prejudice, and its subsequent refusal to disavow its legal claims, there is (1) a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality

COMPLAINT BY GOOGLE INC.

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment, and (2) an actual or imminent injury caused by BDR that can be redressed by judicial relief. Thus, there is an actual justiciable controversy between the parties. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of No Contributory Infringement) 18. 19. Google incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-17 as if fully set forth herein. Google has not engaged in contributory infringement of any of the Works in Suit

by providing in its search index the links referenced in BDR's Amended Complaint. 20. There is an actual and present controversy between Google and BDR concerning

Google's alleged contributory infringement of the Works in Suit. Google seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the rights and duties of the parties concerning BDR's allegations of contributory infringement against Google. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of No Vicarious Infringement) 21. 22. Google incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-17 as if fully set forth herein. Google has not engaged in vicarious infringement of any of the Works in Suit by

providing in its search index the links referenced in BDR's Amended Complaint. 23. There is an actual and present controversy between Google and BDR concerning

Google's alleged vicarious infringement of the Works in Suit. Google seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the rights and duties of the parties concerning BDR's allegations of vicarious infringement against Google. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of No Inducement of Infringement) 24. 25. Google incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-17 as if fully set forth herein. Google has not engaged in inducement infringement of any of the Works in Suit

by providing in its search index the links referenced in BDR's Amended Complaint. 26. There is an actual and present controversy between Google and BDR concerning

Google's alleged inducement infringement of the Works in Suit. Google seeks a judicial

COMPLAINT BY GOOGLE INC.

-4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

determination and declaration of the rights and duties of the parties concerning BDR's allegations of inducement infringement against Google.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Applicability of the DMCA Safe Harbor) 27. 28. 29. Google incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-26 as if fully set forth herein. Google is a service provider as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 512(k)(1)(B). Google accommodates and does not interfere with any standard technical

measures as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(B). 30. BDR's claims to seek to hold Google liable "for infringement of copyright by

reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link" pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(d). 31. Google responded expeditiously to BDR's DMCA-compliant notifications of

claimed infringement by removing, or disabling access to, links leading to webpages allegedly containing material infringing BDR's copyrights. 32. BDR's copyright claims against Google are barred to the extent that they seek any

monetary relief or equitable relief in excess of 17 U.S.C. § 512(j) because Google is protected by the DMCA safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(d). 33. There is an actual and present controversy between Google and BDR concerning

Google's entitlement to the protection of 17 U.S.C. § 512(d) with respect to BDR's infringement claims involving the Works in Suit. Google seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the rights and duties of the parties concerning its entitlement DMCA safe harbor protection. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Google prays for a judgment against BDR that: 1. in Suit; Declares that Google has not engaged in contributory infringement of the Works

COMPLAINT BY GOOGLE INC.

-5-

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B